Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Liu v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  They failed to take into account the various criteria elaborated by the Court (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII) and to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 8.

  In assessing the question of necessity, the Court could have had regard to the various criteria set out in the judgment of Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII).

• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  The Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean, however, that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, with references to Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.

  It also notes that in the case of Mehemi v. France (no. 2)(no. 53470/99, ECHR 2003-IV) it examined a new application while its first judgment in respect of the same applicant was still pending before the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  In addition, domestic law must afford a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-VII; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; and Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 67 and 68, Series A no. 82).

 
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  However, a law which confers discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of "foreseeability" (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 61, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  "61. The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31; Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX; and Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004) and that, by Article 46 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they were parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B).
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  They referred to the cases of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004-X), and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 3455/05, ECHR 2009-), claiming that the refusal to disclose the relevant evidence had violated their right to a fair trial.
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  "61. The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31; Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX; and Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004) and that, by Article 46 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they were parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  The Court reaffirms at the outset that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38498/97

  RANDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  The Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean, however, that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, with references to Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  To the extent that the lawfulness issues are relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference they will be addressed in paragraphs 80 to 96 below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Sur ce fondement, la Cour s'est dite compétente pour connaître de griefs formulés dans un certain nombre d'affaires faisant suite à des arrêts rendus par elle, par exemple lorsque les autorités internes avaient procédé à un réexamen du dossier dans le cadre de l'exécution de l'un de ses arrêts, que ce soit par la réouverture de l'instance (Emre c. Suisse (no 2), no 5056/10, 11 octobre 2011, et Hertel [c. Suisse (déc.), no 53440/99, CEDH 2002-I]) ou par la conduite d'un tout nouveau procès (Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden - PIRIN et autres c. Bulgarie (no 2), nos 41561/07 et 20972/08, 18 octobre 2011, et Liou c. Russie (no 2), no 29157/09, 26 juillet 2011).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14

  Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde

  Auf dieser Grundlage hat sich der Gerichtshof in einer Reihe von Folgefällen für die Prüfung von Rügen zuständig erklärt, beispielsweise in Fällen, in denen die innerstaatlichen Behörden im Zusammenhang mit der Durchführung eines Urteils des Gerichtshofs eine neue innerstaatliche Prüfung des Falles vorgenommen haben, sei es durch Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens (siehe Emre./. Schweiz (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 5056/10, 11. Oktober 2011, und Hertel [./. Schweiz (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53440/99, ECHR 2002-I]) oder durch Einleitung eines neuen innerstaatlichen Verfahrens (siehe Vereinigte Mazedonische Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN u. a../. Bulgarien (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 41561/07 und 20972/08, 18. Oktober 2011 und Liu./. Russland (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29157/09, 26. Juli 2011).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I; see also Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, §§ 74-76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85 and 86, 26 July 2011).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  But, as noted in paragraph 255 above, such "relevant new information" is present in this case (compare, mutatis mutandis, with Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2003-IV; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 34-37, 10 April 2008; Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 62-67, 26 July 2011; Ivantoc and Others, cited above, §§ 89-95; and V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 49-54, 15 November 2018).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 1085/10

  GUJA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 2)

  Measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court which raise a new issue undecided by the original judgment fall within the Court's jurisdiction and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, 26 July 2011; Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, 11 October 2011; Egmez (no. 2), cited above, § 52; and Bochan (no. 2), cited above, § 36; see also Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, with references to Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76550/13

  SABER ET BOUGHASSAL c. ESPAGNE

  Elle rappelle que, si l'article 8 ne contient pas d'exigences procédurales explicites, le processus décisionnel conduisant à des mesures d'ingérence n'en doit pas moins être équitable et respecter comme il se doit les intérêts de l'individu protégés par cet article (Liou c. Russie (no 2), no 29157/09, § 86, 26 juillet 2011).
• EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Significant weight must, therefore, attach to the judgment of the domestic authorities, and especially of the national courts, who are better placed to assess the evidence relating to the existence of a national security threat" (see Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, 26 July 2011, § 85).
• EGMR, 11.07.2022 - 28749/18

  Urteil nicht befolgt: Türkei muss Geldstrafe im Fall Kavala zahlen

  Il convient ensuite d'observer que, si la Cour considère que l'article 46 de la Convention ne fait pas obstacle à son examen, elle peut se déclarer compétente pour connaître de griefs formulés dans le cadre d'une nouvelle requête faisant suite à des arrêts rendus par elle, par exemple lorsque les autorités internes ont procédé à un réexamen du dossier dans le cadre de l'exécution de l'un de ses arrêts, que ce soit par la réouverture de l'instance (Emre c. Suisse (no 2), no 5056/10, 11 octobre 2011, et Hertel c. Suisse (déc.), no 53440/99, CEDH 2002-I) ou par la conduite d'un tout nouveau procès (Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden - PIRIN et autres c. Bulgarie (no 2), nos 41561/07 et 20972/08, 18 octobre 2011, et Liou c. Russie (no 2), no 29157/09, 26 juillet 2011).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  SEKS v. CROATIA

  National security being an evolving and context-dependent concept, the States must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in assessing what poses a national security risk in their countries at a particular time (see, mutatis mutandis, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 88, 26 July 2011, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, in the context of decisions relating to town and country planning policies, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and in other contexts: Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85-86, 26 July 2011; Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 418).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 18913/11

  K.K. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 66763/17

  TELEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 52693/12

  S.L. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 66729/16

  AKÇAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 29079/22 (anhängig)

  HODZA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 14876/12

  I.R. AND G.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM